Saturday, December 29, 2007

A History of Violence

I love history, I can’t seem to get enough. I’m enthralled with the rise and fall of tribes, languages, civilizations, systems of belief. Erin’s dad bought me a $50 gift card to Borders for Christmas and I’ve used it all on history books. During my stay at my parents over the Christmas holiday, I read one of the books I bought, “Days that Changed the World: The 50 defining events of world history” by Hywel Williams. It’s a fascinating book and he’s a great writer. Just for the heck of it, I’m going to list the 50 events he’s singled out. Williams is British and although he’s included some Far Eastern history, he’s looking at history through the perspective of a Westerner.

What blows me away about this list is that only 6 historical events (19, 27, 32, 41, 43, 44 and 47) are not in some way associated with violence. Even the explorers quickly slaughtered those they “discovered,” Luther’s Protestant Reformation lead to centuries of religious wars and Einstein’s genius gave him a platform to first speak out against war and then to push for the development of the atomic bomb.

It seems that history always changes with one group of people violently defeating another group of people. The last of the Greek empire gives way to the Turks when Constantinople falls to the Ottomans. The Ottomans give way to the Austrians when they fail to take Vienna. World history has been determined by those who best wield their swords.

But there is one exception: the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus Christ was the only one who conquered by willingly laying down his life. Of course, Good Friday did not seem like a victory to Jesus’ followers at the time, but the Resurrection three days later was Jesus’ moment of victory. The Resurrection demonstrated that neither the military power of Rome nor the political power of the Religious Right (the Jewish religious leaders) were any match for the Resurrection. Jesus willingly laying down his life and then God bringing him back to life sparked a movement that transformed the world. Christians took salvation to the far reaches of the Roman Empire and even beyond. Three hundred years of Christ-followers committed to nonviolence and self-giving love. Untold numbers of Christians were killed for their faith but the movement kept spreading. For as Tertullian (155-230) proclaimed, “In the blood of the martyrs lies the seed of the Church.”

But the Kingdom of Jesus was transplanted by the ideal of Christendom with the unfortunate (by my perspective) event of Constantine’s victory at the battle of Milvian bridge in 312. Constantine was one of several leaders vying for the Emperor’s seat. A few days before the battle, Constantine had a vision of a cross and heard a voice declaring, “by this sign you will conquer.” Constantine had the sign of the cross affixed to his soldier’s shields and his armies won the battle. Constantine eventually rose to become Emperor and declared Christianity to be the official and established religion of the Roman Empire. With this Edict of Milan, Christianity went from being the persecuted to the powerful. Nothing could’ve been worse for the Kingdom of Christ. Williams describes it this way, “After 330, surrounded by glory, Christianity in Europe entered into the mainstream and therefore lost what it had once had – the dissenting edge of an underground movement.” This linking of Christianity to political and military power is what prompted this entry into the journal of an unknown French Revolutionary in July of 1791, “When the last king is hanged with the bowels of the last priest, the human race can hope for happiness.”

There are a lot of people who convert to Christ but never really grasp or live out everything that Jesus taught. For some it’s because they’ve been away from Christ for so long that their time of following Christ isn’t long enough to facilitate a complete re-orientation of their lives to Jesus’ teaching. There are others who settle for having their “sins forgiven” but never get much deeper than that. I’m not sure what category Constantine fit into but while his conversion seemed to be legit, he missed the point of a lot of Jesus’ teachings. He did try, though. He passed laws to make Rome more “Christian.” He forbid work on Sunday, he established Saints Days and other Christian holiday (read my post on the “Christmas Wars”) and even fought for pure Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicea. But Constantine never grasped Jesus’ commitment to nonviolence and self-sacrifice. Williams described Constantine as a “sincere, if bloody, Christian.” Constantine used the sword to extend Rome’s territory as well as silencing those who differed with ‘official’ Christian doctrine, particularly Arianism.

With Constantine’s conversion, Christians picked up the sword in 313 AD and many of them have yet to put it down. Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation in 1521 lead to two centuries of religious wars between Catholics, Calvinists and Lutherans. Modern American Christians were wielding the sword through efforts to “take America back for God” through political power or in the unconditional support of American Militarism.

But as Gregory Boyd teaches in his book “The Myth of a Christian Nation” the Kingdom of Jesus is not about picking up the sword but in picking up the cross. In fact, Boyd goes so far as to say the sword and the cross cannot co-exist. We either choose to live by the values of the kingdom of Jesus or the kingdoms of the world. The world “wins” by exercising power over, Christians “win” by exercising power under. A way we’re living this out in our church is through our Love Wins ministry. Rather than joining a recent movement to outlaw these clubs, as some pastors were recruiting me to join, we’ve instead discovered ways to serve the girls working in the sex industry.

A great example from history is in the life of William Wilberforce. Wilberforce spent decades fighting to convince Parliament to end England’s slave trade. But as always happens, political leaders chose what was financially viable over what was humanitarian. On Christmas night, we watched Wilberforce’s story in the movie, “Amazing Grace.” At one point in the movie, one of Wilberforce’s closest friends and strongest political advocates tries to convince Wilberforce to lead a military revolution. This friend’s rationale was that military violence is a small price to pay for a new world rid of economic oppression and slavery. If only Wilberforce would drink “the wine of revolution” they could start a new order. “The Americans pulled the cork out of the bottle, now the French share the wine… It’s a natural wave that’s flowing Wilber. First Boston, then Paris. Next, London.”
But unlike so many other leaders who honestly believe they’re fighting for freedom Wilberforce rejects the seduction of violence. He refused to use the evil of war to fight the evil of slavery. The ends, according to Wilberforce, do not justify the means.
Wilberforce’s (movie) response to his allies urging was “you must never speak of revolution in my presence again.”

Parliament abolished the slave trade in 1807 and emancipated the slaves in 1833. In the scene after the bill to abolish the slave trade has passed, John Fox gives this speech. “When people think of great men, they think of men like Napoleon. Men of violence. Rarely do they think of peaceful men. But contrast the reception when they return home from their battles. Napoleon will arrive in pomp and power. A man who’s achieved the very summit of earthly ambition. Yet his dreams will be haunted by the oppressions of war. William Wilberforce, however, will return to his family, lay his head on his pillow, and remember the slave trade is no more.” Ironically, this morning I read this quote from Napoleon, “My power proceeds from my reputation and my reputation from the victories I have won… Conquest has made me what I am; only conquest can maintain me.”

Another great example of a non-violent revolution is the Civil Rights Movement. According to the author, “A visit to India in 1959 confirmed [King’s] view that Mahatma Gandhi’s path of non-violence had been an effective way of ‘meeting physical force with soul force.’” This commitment to non-violence lead King to denounce the “black power” movement and to encourage his followers to react with peace even when beaten. In fact, it was the attack of the police dogs on Bloody Sunday in which Kings’ followers refused to fight back when unjustly beaten, that won over the country’s opinion to King’s side.

As Christians, our power comes not from our political or military might but in our knowledge that death is not the end of our story. Our power comes in our commitment to self-sacrifice and we’re able to lay down our lives for others because we worship the God of the Resurrection.

_______________________________________________________

And as one final side note. Rome never completely gave up her worship of pagan gods. But since most Christian ‘conversions’ were done for political advancement rather than for love of Jesus, why would people forsake what they’d always known? Even when Constantine’s new “Christian” city of Constantinople was dedicated, a statue of the Greek goddess Tyche with the Christian cross attached to her forehead was paraded throughout the city. In “the more things change the more the stay the same” category, that reminded me of a popular picture of the Christian cross draped with the American flag. We’ve replaced the combination of Greek mythology and Christian theology with American militarism and consumerism with Christian teaching. Could we be so in love with Jesus that we willingly leave behind the false ‘gods’ of our American culture? Can we follow the teaching (Sermon on the Mount) of the One who was slaughtered but now reigns (Revelation 5) and who conquers his enemies not by shedding their blood but in the shedding of his own blood (Revelation 19:11-16).

2 comments:

Joe K
said...

I understand where you are coming from on your stance on violence, but I would say there is a place for violence(hard to believe, coming from a guy in the ARMY.) Wasn't it that Christian writer guy Bonhoffer that tried to assasinate Hitler? Do you think he was wrong in trying? I am just curious to what you think. I enjoy reading your blogs!

That's a great point. There's obviously a huge difference between Bonhoffer's assination attempt and the religious wars of the Protestant Reformation. One was an attempt to save lives another was an attempt to control other people. I'm certainly not a pure pacifist who is against all forms of violence. Maybe I could be categorized as a "skeptical pacifist." Violence is OCCASSIONALLY yet RARELY necessary. We must be very, very, very sure there is truly no other option or that the violence will truly save a LOT of lives. There may have been another way to take out Hitler without killing him, but I think Bonhoffer was justified. I also think another key is to not glorify or spiritualize violence. Even if we do resort to violence, it's always evil, it just may be a lesser evil. I enjoy studying war history (which may be a contradiction in my thinking) and it seems that government leaders are always spiritualizing their wars. Demonizing the enemy while praising themselves and just knowing that God is on their side. I think that's really dangerous. Violence is kind of like divorce. It should always be a last resort, but there are times when it seems to be necessary. But even then, we must acknowledge that the act is a sin and acknowledge the sin that lead to that point.